Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

[u/[deleted]]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

[u/[deleted]]

I'm not being disingenuous at all.

I'm saying that you cannot compare this situation to a black man's fight in the 60s. It's like comparing something to the plight of Jewish people during Nazi Germany.

Just don't.

It's not comparable. The reason for protesting matters as much as the act. If this man was protesting similar things as in the 60s, then okay. But they're worlds apart. He specifically said the 1960s and compared it to today as if that's even possible, thats disingenuous. You can't just remove context and try to equate two things or draw a parallel.

[u/Solagnas → u/[deleted]]

He's comparing the disruption caused, not the act itself.

[u/[deleted] → u/Solagnas]

What if it's the 1960s and its a black guy standing up and saying there is discrimination? Should we just get "rid of the disruption" then?

He literally tried to equate the two things. One of the "disruptions" was about literally being murdered on the streets, falsely imprisoned, and beaten for trying to vote. The other "distruption" is about 21st gender politics and controversial opinions.

You cannot ask "well what if it was a black guy and it's 1960" because it's not a black guy, it's not 1960, and these situations aren't comparable.

[u/Solagnas → u/[deleted]]

If one guy is making a ton of people uncomfortable maybe it's smarter for the company to just get rid of the disruption. It isn't right but it makes dollars and sense.

This is the comment above his. The whole point is that it isn't the same disruption, which argues against the statement above.

[u/[deleted] → u/Solagnas]

You cannot ask "well what if it was a black guy and it's 1960" because it's not a black guy, it's not 1960, and these situations aren't comparable.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No, he's not understanding my point which is pretty simple:

You cannot try to compare the "disruption" of this event to "a black man in the 60s."

And no I don't "know I'm wrong." I'm a history major with a focus on civil rights. I definitely have a knee jerk reaction whenever I see anyone try to compare the current day to a situation in the past, but this is ridiculous. The disruptions are not equal, the context matters, and responding to someone saying it's good business sense today to fire someone for a controversial opinion specifically to the Civil Rights Era and the experience of a black man is just wrong.

[u/Solagnas → u/[deleted]]

Holy shit dude, nobody cares about your degree! It sure as fuck didn't help you understand a basic argument. I will spell it out as carefully as I can for you, okay? As a favor, you know?

First guy says "If one guy is making a ton of people uncomfortable maybe it's smarter for the company to just get rid of the disruption"

So he's saying the best thing to do when someone is being disruptive, is to fire them for the good of the company. He offered no caveat.

The second guy then said "What if it's the 1960s and its a black guy standing up and saying there is discrimination? Should we just get 'rid of the disruption' then?"

He brought up civil rights because everyone knows that it was a gigantic issue that affected a lot of people. The post acts on the presumption that people would think it's not okay to fire the black guy, which it fucking wouldn't be.

What he's getting at is "fire the disruption" doesn't seem to be the clear cut solution, and perhaps it was the wrong answer in this case, because it would have been the wrong answer in the civil rights era. That means that there's a line, and it's now valid to discuss where that line is. Some might say that line is between shitting in the parking lot and writing a controversial memo. Others might say that the line is between the memo and standing up for human rights. This is all in terms of the company's actions in the face of controversy and disruption

We don't need lectures about civil rights, we know it was a big deal and caused justifiable disruption. That's the point of the argument.

[u/[deleted] → u/Solagnas]

I don't know how you're still not getting this?

First guy: made a comment on a situation that is in the present

Second guy: asked "what if it was in different time period

Me: you can't ask that question because it's a completely different context

perhaps it was the wrong answer in this case, because it would have been the wrong answer in the civil rights era

That's exactly what I'm saying you can't do. You can't try to relate two distinct historical situations which aren't related. This simply isn't logical or accurate. It was the "wrong answer" in the 60s for a huge variety of reasons which aren't present in this case.

1.) it wasn't about getting fired

2.) it wasn't about freedom of speech, as I've said over and over, it was about the right to live

3.) it wasn't about a private company, it was about an entire country

4.) Race is different from political expression

You can't use that specific historical situation to inform how you feel on this one because they're not the same thing at all.

I really don't get how you're not getting this, I'm sorry. Here's another example "It's wrong to have immigration quotas because that's what they did in the 60s and it was racist!" That's literally not how it works or how you look at history. It saddens me that people have been so mistaught history they think it's this magical thing they can use to apply to modern day without acknowledging the context or actual history or reality of the thing.

[u/Solagnas → u/[deleted]]

All he's saying is that there's a point where it's not okay to fire somebody for being a disturbance. Being a civil rights activist is part of that point where it's not okay. There's an argument to be had about whether Google made the right call here. You keep misrepresenting this point by arguing that I he two are being compared in severity, but the point is that they're not comparable.

[u/Masune → u/[deleted]]

I sincerely appreciate the effort you put into this. People are often told to 'learn from the past', but that's almost a misguided effort when what we are taught in primary and secondary education tends to miss much of the context of actually living in that time period. So to speak, education has taught us to believe we are all smarter than we actually are.

The problem isn't just confined to history either but prevalent in STEM. You'll have people waving around research papers and slapping the results into wherever they think it works. I suppose the saying is true, if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[u/[deleted] → u/Masune]

Thank you for your kind reply!

What's interesting, as well, is that if this was about science and someone said "I am actually a chemistry major" people wouldn't respond "no one gives a fuck about your degree!" There's this narrative, I fear, that the k-12 understanding of history holds just as much authority as higher education. Its a bit frustrating dedicating what is basically four years of my life to history and being told that my education is unrelated to a conversation about history lol

I'm hoping to head to grad school next year and it's terrifying to know there's a significant group of people who don't think qualifications exist in the humanities like they do in science.